Liothyronine and Desiccated Thyroid Extract in the Treatment of Hypothyroidism.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Idrees T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7640752 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionStudies comparing levothyroxine (LT4) therapy with LT4 + liothyronine (LT3) or desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) did not detect consistent superiority of either treatment. Here, we investigated these therapies, focusing on the whole group of LT4-treated hypothyroid patients, while also exploring the most symptomatic patients.MethodologyProspective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study of 75 hypothyroid patients randomly allocated to 1 of 3 treatment arms, LT4, LT4 + LT3, and DTE, for 22 weeks. The primary outcomes were posttreatment scores on the 36-point thyroid symptom questionnaire (TSQ-36), 12-point quality of life general health questionnaire (GHQ-12), the Wechsler memory scale-version IV (VMS-IV), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Secondary endpoints included treatment preference, biochemical and metabolic parameters, etiology of hypothyroidism, and Thr92Ala-DIO2 gene polymorphism. Analyses were performed with a linear mixed model using subject as a random factor and group as a fixed effect.ResultsSerum TSH remained within reference range across all treatment arms. There were no differences for primary and secondary outcomes, except for a minor increase in heart rate caused by DTE. Treatment preference was not different and there were no interferences of the etiology of hypothyroidism or Thr92Ala-DIO2 gene polymorphism in the outcomes. Subgroup analyses of the 1/3 most symptomatic patients on LT4 revealed strong preference for treatment containing T3, which improved performance on TSQ-36, GHQ-12, BDI, and visual memory index (VMS-IV component).ConclusionsAs a group, outcomes were similar among hypothyroid patients taking DTE vs LT4 + T3 vs LT4. However, those patients that were most symptomatic on LT4 preferred and responded positively to therapy with LT4 + LT3 or DTE.
| S-EPMC8530721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: It is unclear why many patients with hypothyroidism prefer the use of desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) as a thyroid hormone replacement formulation over levothyroxine (LT4) treatment, as recommended by clinical practice guidelines. We analyzed patient-reported information from patient online forums to better understand patient preferences for and attitudes toward the use of DTE to treat hypothyroidism. Materials and Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study by evaluating the content of online posts from three popular hypothyroidism forums from patients currently taking DTE (n = 673). From these posts, we extracted descriptive information on patient demographics and clinical characteristics and qualitatively analyzed posts' content to explore patient perceptions on DTE and other therapies further. Results: Nearly half (46%) of the patients reported that a clinician initially drove their interest in trying DTE. Patients described many reasons for switching from a previous therapeutic approach to DTE, including lack of improvement in hypothyroidism-related symptoms (58%) and the development of side effects (22%). The majority of patients described DTE as moderately to majorly effective overall (81%) and more effective than the previous therapy (77%). The most frequently described benefits associated with DTE use were an improvement in symptoms (56%) and a change in overall well-being (34%). One-fifth of patients described side effects related to the use of DTE. Qualitative analysis of posts' content supported these findings and raised additional issues around the need for individualizing therapy approaches for hypothyroidism (e.g., a sense of each patient has different needs), as well as difficulties obtaining DTE (e.g., issues with pharmacy availability). Conclusions: Lack of individualized treatment and a feeling of not been listened to were recurrent themes among DTE users. A subset of patients may prefer DTE to LT4 for many reasons, including perceived better effectiveness and improved overall well-being, despite the risks associated with DTE.
| S-EPMC7230696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextLevothyroxine (L-T(4)) therapy is based on the assumption that the conversion of T(4) into T(3) provides adequate amounts of active hormone at target tissues. However, in rodents, L-T(4) alone does not restore a euthyroid state in all tissues. Previous combination L-T(4)/liothyronine (L-T(3)) therapy trials focused on quality-of-life endpoints, and limited information is available on the effects on other measures of thyroid hormone action.ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate the efficacy of thyroid hormone replacement with L-T(4) or L-T(3) at doses producing equivalent normalization of TSH.Participants, design, and settingFourteen hypothyroid patients participated in this randomized, double-blind, crossover intervention at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.InterventionsL-T(3) or L-T(4) were administered thrice daily to achieve a target TSH from 0.5-1.5 mU/liter. Volunteers were studied as inpatients after 6 wk on a stable dose and at the target TSH.Main outcome measuresSerum thyroid hormones, lipid parameters, and indices of glucose metabolism were evaluated.ResultsNo difference was observed in TSH between L-T(3) and L-T(4) treatments. L-T(3) resulted in significant weight loss [L-T(4), 70.6 ± 12.5, vs. L-T(3), 68.5 ± 11.9 kg (P = 0.009)] and in a 10.9 ± 10.0% decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.002), 13.3 ± 12.1% decrease in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (P = 0.002), and an 18.3 ± 28.6% decrease in apolipoprotein B (P = 0.018). No significant differences were observed in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, heart rate, blood pressure, exercise tolerance, or insulin sensitivity.ConclusionsThe substitution of L-T(3) for L-T(4) at equivalent doses (relative to the pituitary) reduced body weight and resulted in greater thyroid hormone action on the lipid metabolism, without detected differences in cardiovascular function or insulin sensitivity.
| S-EPMC3205882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Fourteen clinical trials have not shown a consistent benefit of combination therapy with levothyroxine (LT4) and liothyronine (LT3). Despite the publication of these trials, combination therapy is widely used and patients reporting benefit continue to generate patient and physician interest in this area. Recent scientific developments may provide insight into this inconsistency and guide future studies. Methods: The American Thyroid Association (ATA), British Thyroid Association (BTA), and European Thyroid Association (ETA) held a joint conference on November 3, 2019 (live-streamed between Chicago and London) to review new basic science and clinical evidence regarding combination therapy with presentations and input from 12 content experts. After the presentations, the material was synthesized and used to develop Summary Statements of the current state of knowledge. After review and revision of the material and Summary Statements, there was agreement that there was equipoise for a new clinical trial of combination therapy. Consensus Statements encapsulating the implications of the material discussed with respect to the design of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy were generated. Authors voted upon the Consensus Statements. Iterative changes were made in several rounds of voting and after comments from ATA/BTA/ETA members. Results: Of 34 Consensus Statements available for voting, 28 received at least 75% agreement, with 13 receiving 100% agreement. Those with 100% agreement included studies being powered to study the effect of deiodinase and thyroid hormone transporter polymorphisms on study outcomes, inclusion of patients dissatisfied with their current therapy and requiring at least 1.2 μg/kg of LT4 daily, use of twice daily LT3 or preferably a slow-release preparation if available, use of patient-reported outcomes as a primary outcome (measured by a tool with both relevant content validity and responsiveness) and patient preference as a secondary outcome, and utilization of a randomized placebo-controlled adequately powered double-blinded parallel design. The remaining statements are presented as potential additional considerations. Discussion: This article summarizes the areas discussed and presents Consensus Statements to guide development of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy. The results of such redesigned trials are expected to be of benefit to patients and of value to inform future thyroid hormone replacement clinical practice guidelines treatment recommendations.
| S-EPMC8035928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFourteen clinical trials have not shown a consistent benefit of combination therapy with levothyroxine (LT4) and liothyronine (LT3). Despite the publication of these trials, combination therapy is widely used and patients reporting benefit continue to generate patient and physician interest in this area. Recent scientific developments may provide insight into this inconsistency and guide future studies.MethodsThe American Thyroid Association (ATA), British Thyroid Association (BTA), and European Thyroid Association (ETA) held a joint conference on November 3, 2019 (live-streamed between Chicago and London) to review new basic science and clinical evidence regarding combination therapy with presentations and input from 12 content experts. After the presentations, the material was synthesized and used to develop Summary Statements of the current state of knowledge. After review and revision of the material and Summary Statements, there was agreement that there was equipoise for a new clinical trial of combination therapy. Consensus Statements encapsulating the implications of the material discussed with respect to the design of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy were generated. Authors voted upon the Consensus Statements. Iterative changes were made in several rounds of voting and after comments from ATA/BTA/ETA members.ResultsOf 34 Consensus Statements available for voting, 28 received at least 75% agreement, with 13 receiving 100% agreement. Those with 100% agreement included studies being powered to study the effect of deiodinase and thyroid hormone transporter polymorphisms on study outcomes, inclusion of patients dissatisfied with their current therapy and requiring at least 1.2 µg/kg of LT4 daily, use of twice daily LT3 or preferably a slow-release preparation if available, use of patient-reported outcomes as a primary outcome (measured by a tool with both relevant content validity and responsiveness) and patient preference as a secondary outcome, and utilization of a randomized placebo-controlled adequately powered double-blinded parallel design. The remaining statements are presented as potential additional considerations.DiscussionThis article summarizes the areas discussed and presents Consensus Statements to guide development of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy. The results of such redesigned trials are expected to be of benefit to patients and of value to inform future thyroid hormone replacement clinical practice guidelines treatment recommendations.
| S-EPMC7983670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Background Liothyronine (LT3) is a substitute for levothyroxine (LT4) for thyroid cancer patients during the preparation for nuclear medicine procedures, and there is renewed interest in its use in combination with LT4 in patients who do not respond to the standard treatment. This therapy is commonly done on fixed doses potentially resulting in supraphysiologic levels of T3. A good understanding of the LT3 pharmacokinetics (PK) is necessary to design combination treatment schemes able to maintain serum T3 levels within normal range, but data on the PK of LT3 are conflicting. Here we present a study designed to characterize the PK of LT3 in patients devoid of endogenous thyroid hormone production, not receiving LT4. Methods We performed an open label PK study in patients undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal in preparation for nuclear medicine procedures for the evaluation and treatment of follicular-derived thyroid cancer (Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01441154). LT3 was substituted for LT4 at 1:3 mcg/mcg dosage ratio thrice daily for at least thirty days. PK of single dose LT3 and terminal elimination were assessed over eleven days and first dose PK was offered following the nuclear medicine procedures. Results Fourteen patients (7 males, 7 females) age 48.5±16.0 years completed the study. The LT3 daily dose was 53.7±12.3 (0.74±0.1 mcg/Kg). PK studies performed with the morning dose (18.8±4.4 mcg), indicate a Cmax of 320±60 ng/dl, significantly above the upper limit (90-215). Tmax was 1.8±0.5 hours and two distinct phases of linear elimination with a fast distribution phase and slow elimination phases with half-lives of 1.2 hours and 29.9 hours were identified, supporting a two-compartment model. PK modeling for a 50 mcg LT3 total dose predicted that while the mean T3 levels would not significantly differ among single, twice, or thrice daily administration regimens, the variance would differ dramatically, 213.5±126 vs. 214.5±61 vs. 214.5±35 ng/dl, single, twice and thrice daily administration, respectively. We next performed a PK modeling for LT3/LT4 combination therapy, twice daily administration. The results indicate that low dose LT3 (up to 0.07 mcg/kg twice daily) in combination with LT4 can predictably increase the serum T3 concentration without significant peaks above the normal range. Conclusions The PK of LT3 is well described by a two-compartment model that assumes elimination only from the sampling compartment, with a rapid distribution phase and a slow elimination phase. This information will contribute to design therapeutic strategies for LT3/LT4 combination therapy directed to maintain stable T3 serum levels. Unless otherwise noted, all abstracts presented at ENDO are embargoed until the date and time of presentation. For oral presentations, the abstracts are embargoed until the session begins. Abstracts presented at a news conference are embargoed until the date and time of the news conference. The Endocrine Society reserves the right to lift the embargo on specific abstracts that are selected for promotion prior to or during ENDO.
| S-EPMC6550962 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective To estimate the effectiveness and safety of thyroid hormone treatment among pregnant women with subclinical hypothyroidism.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Large US administrative database between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014.Participants 5405 pregnant women with subclinical hypothyroidism, defined as untreated thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentration 2.5-10 mIU/L.Exposure Thyroid hormone therapy.Main outcome measure Pregnancy loss and other pre-specified maternal and fetal pregnancy related adverse outcomes.Results Among 5405 pregnant women with subclinical hypothyroidism, 843 with a mean pre-treatment TSH concentration of 4.8 (SD 1.7) mIU/L were treated with thyroid hormone and 4562 with a mean baseline TSH concentration of 3.3 (SD 0.9) mIU/L were not treated (P<0.01). Pregnancy loss was significantly less common among treated women (n=89; 10.6%) than among untreated women (n=614; 13.5%) (P<0.01). Compared with the untreated group, treated women had lower adjusted odds of pregnancy loss (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.82) but higher odds of preterm delivery (1.60, 1.14 to 2.24), gestational diabetes (1.37, 1.05 to 1.79), and pre-eclampsia (1.61, 1.10 to 2.37); other pregnancy related adverse outcomes were similar between the two groups. The adjusted odds of pregnancy loss were lower in treated women than in untreated women if their pre-treatment TSH concentration was 4.1-10 mIU/L (odds ratio 0.45, 0.30 to 0.65) but not if it was 2.5-4.0 mIU/L (0.91, 0.65 to 1.23) (P<0.01).Conclusion Thyroid hormone treatment was associated with decreased risk of pregnancy loss among women with subclinical hypothyroidism, especially those with pre-treatment TSH concentrations of 4.1-10 mIU/L. However, the increased risk of other pregnancy related adverse outcomes calls for additional studies evaluating the safety of thyroid hormone treatment in this patient population.
| S-EPMC5266622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The new NICE guidelines on thyroid disease and its management do not recommend the routine use of liothyronine, but do not completely rule it out either. Guidelines from the British and European Thyroid Associations are open to a "trial of liothyronine" on an individual basis. Some patients do not feel well on L-thyroxine despite a serum TSH in the reference range. Key issues to consider in such patients include establishing whether the patient had established hypothyroidism initially, and whether the L-thyroxine has been titrated carefully enough, possibly using small increments, to achieve a careful balance between symptoms and serum TSH concentrations. Patients should also be considered for other causes of the symptoms which may be wide-ranging. Meta-analyses of several, but small, randomised control trials show no advantage, or disadvantage of liothyronine over L-thyroxine. However, detailed sub-analysis identifies some tantalising results eg on preferential weight loss, patient preference, and possibly genetic markers. Although linked with plausible theoretical explanations, these results may be over-interpreted. The key questions are whether a short-term trial treatment is worthwhile and safe, and whether in the future sub-groups of patients can be identified who may benefit from liothyronine. These questions remain divisive but require additional focussed research. It could be argued that inflated costs of liothyronine in some countries have either distracted from or helped focus on the science. Costs need to be addressed. However better biomarkers of tissue level thyroid action, and a better understanding of the impact of genetic polymorphisms will help to make progress when choosing if there is a place for liothyronine in the future. (words: 262).
| S-EPMC7245024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A number of recent advances in our understanding of thyroid physiology may shed light on why some patients feel unwell while taking levothyroxine monotherapy. The purpose of this task force was to review the goals of levothyroxine therapy, the optimal prescription of conventional levothyroxine therapy, the sources of dissatisfaction with levothyroxine therapy, the evidence on treatment alternatives, and the relevant knowledge gaps. We wished to determine whether there are sufficient new data generated by well-designed studies to provide reason to pursue such therapies and change the current standard of care. This document is intended to inform clinical decision-making on thyroid hormone replacement therapy; it is not a replacement for individualized clinical judgment.Task force members identified 24 questions relevant to the treatment of hypothyroidism. The clinical literature relating to each question was then reviewed. Clinical reviews were supplemented, when relevant, with related mechanistic and bench research literature reviews, performed by our team of translational scientists. Ethics reviews were provided, when relevant, by a bioethicist. The responses to questions were formatted, when possible, in the form of a formal clinical recommendation statement. When responses were not suitable for a formal clinical recommendation, a summary response statement without a formal clinical recommendation was developed. For clinical recommendations, the supporting evidence was appraised, and the strength of each clinical recommendation was assessed, using the American College of Physicians system. The final document was organized so that each topic is introduced with a question, followed by a formal clinical recommendation. Stakeholder input was received at a national meeting, with some subsequent refinement of the clinical questions addressed in the document. Consensus was achieved for all recommendations by the task force.We reviewed the following therapeutic categories: (i) levothyroxine therapy, (ii) non-levothyroxine-based thyroid hormone therapies, and (iii) use of thyroid hormone analogs. The second category included thyroid extracts, synthetic combination therapy, triiodothyronine therapy, and compounded thyroid hormones.We concluded that levothyroxine should remain the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. We found no consistently strong evidence for the superiority of alternative preparations (e.g., levothyroxine-liothyronine combination therapy, or thyroid extract therapy, or others) over monotherapy with levothyroxine, in improving health outcomes. Some examples of future research needs include the development of superior biomarkers of euthyroidism to supplement thyrotropin measurements, mechanistic research on serum triiodothyronine levels (including effects of age and disease status, relationship with tissue concentrations, as well as potential therapeutic targeting), and long-term outcome clinical trials testing combination therapy or thyroid extracts (including subgroup effects). Additional research is also needed to develop thyroid hormone analogs with a favorable benefit to risk profile.
| S-EPMC4267409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMedicines with limited evidence of effectiveness are prime candidates for disinvestment. However, investment in further research may be preferable to deimplementation, given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and research can inform formulary decisions. A case in point is liothyronine, which is sometimes prescribed to levothyroxine-treated patients who continue to experience hypothyroid symptoms. It is a putative low value medicine, associated with uncertainties in both clinical and cost-effectiveness. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of liothyronine in this context, and estimate the value of conducting further research.DesignCost utility and value of information analyses.SettingPrimary care within the National Health Service in the UK.ParticipantsFifty-four levothyroxine-treated patients with persistent symptoms of hypothyroidism.InterventionsLiothyronine plus levothyroxine versus levothyroxine alone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresIncremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and the expected monetary value of sample information.Results20/54 (37%) of patients who responded to the survey reported severe problems in carrying out usual activities of everyday living and 12/54 (22%) reported severe anxiety or depression symptoms. Mean (SD) utility was 0.53 (0.23). The differences in expected total, 10-year costs and QALYs between a treatment strategy of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy, and levothyroxine alone, was £12 053 and 1.014, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £11 881 per QALY gained was sensitive to the price of liothyronine. The probability of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy being cost effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY was 0.56. The value of reducing uncertainty in the efficacy of treatment was £3.64 m per year in the UK.ConclusionsA definitive clinical trial to confirm clinical effectiveness may be preferable to immediate disinvestment, and would be justified given the value of the information gained far exceeds the cost.
| S-EPMC8647544 | biostudies-literature